Why Obama Shook Chavez's Hand - He campaigned on a new approach to diplomacy.

Beneath the attacks on President Barack Obama's performance at recent meetings abroad lie two fundamental questions about American foreign policy. The first is the extent to which Washington should make changing despised leaders of other countries a primary goal. The second is how to use the power of the presidency.

What the chorus of Mr. Obama's critics is ignoring is that the 2008 election was, in part, a referendum on President Bush's policy of regime change and his approach to diplomacy.

Candidate Barack Obama could not have been clearer. He was going to talk to foreign leaders directly whether the United States agreed with their policies or not. And the purpose of this new diplomacy, Mr. Obama emphasized, was not to change regimes around the world but to advance American interests. His opponent, Sen. John McCain, took the opposite view. He wouldn't be seen in the company of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. And as far as Iran was concerned, Mr. McCain would demand that Tehran capitulate on a series of issues as the price for a meeting with the president.

Despite the results of November's election, Mr. Obama's critics are judging him on the basis of the old Bush calculus. Whether it is Venezuela or Cuba, they assess Mr. Obama's actions based on whether or not they immediately contribute to the downfall of a regime. If not, then they go off in high dudgeon.

Worse yet, Mr. Obama's critics are using the same logic that contributed to early failures in Iraq. They say the president's politeness to Hugo Chavez, for example, should be judged by the standards of the Cold War. They point to the fact that dissidents in Eastern Europe were heartened when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." But that truth doesn't always translate to other parts of the world. If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that not all countries respond the same way when a dictator falls. Unfortunately, many heirs to the Reagan tradition haven't learned that policy by analogy is a risky business.

Whether the challenge is Afghanistan, Pakistan or nuclear proliferation, the new administration seems determined not to be distracted by the advocates of regime change or the likes of Hugo Chavez. Instead, the Obama administration has used recent summits in London, Prague and Trinidad as a way to restore respect for the U.S. abroad, and to build the base of support that is necessary to achieve larger goals.

Mr. Obama not only has a different view than Mr. Bush about the ends of U.S. foreign policy, but he has also promised to use different means than his predecessor. Mr. Bush believed that he could extract concessions from recalcitrant governments as the price of admission for dialogue with the U.S. When it came to preventing North Korea from building nuclear weapons, or Iran from developing nuclear technology, the Bush policy failed. Denying direct access to U.S. officials did not compel the governments in Pyongyang or Tehran to reverse course.

Soon enough Mr. Obama's critics will be howling that he is meeting with the leaders of problematic countries with no dramatic concessions to show for it. But again, they will be missing the point. As he made clear during the campaign, the president believes direct diplomacy is a tool in America's arsenal. It is not a prize to be won.

MR. OBAMA'S NEW DIPLOMACY IS WELL-SUITED TO AN ERA OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND INSTANT COMMUNICATION. BY REFUSING TO SNUB HUGO CHAVEZ, MR. OBAMA MAKES IT HARDER FOR DICTATORS AND ANTI-AMERICAN ACTIVISTS TO DEMONIZE THE U.S. OF COURSE, NATIONAL SECURITY IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. BUT SINCE GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD ARE INCREASINGLY DEMOCRATIC, THEY MUST RESPOND TO THE ATTITUDES OF THEIR PEOPLE. A POPULAR AMERICA HAS MORE LEVERAGE AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE ON ISSUES FROM TRADE TO TERRORISM. WHILE REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES MAY DISMISS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HAVING A PRESIDENT THE WORLD ADMIRES, THE FACT IS THAT MR. OBAMA'S POPULARITY BRINGS TANGIBLE BENEFITS WE HAVE LOST OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.

If the president's critics continue to judge him by Bush-era standards of diplomacy and regime change, they are going to have a lot to shout about over the next four years. But the majority of Americans who supported Barack Obama will withhold judgment and give the administration the opportunity to implement its initiatives on climate change, nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan and Iran. They may even give the new policies time to work.

By James P. Rubin - adjunct professor at Columbia's School of International Affairs, was an assistant secretary of state under President Bill Clinton.

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

nonconforme

You just proved your idiocy by giving obama credit for posessing these abilities. Or the left in general. Diplomacy is essential I agree. But it is only effective when used wisely and in proper form with given circumstances and people.

Being as your savior is bowing to those who wish nothing more than to see America fail, with appeasing overtures, he is essentially resonating a tone of submissiveness by America that will be exploited massively by those who hate America.

Justify your presiMore..dents actions to your hearts content Condom Boy. For the day is soon upon us when choices made will bare fruit which will be inconsumable.Less..

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

nonconforme

I see your litter of comments scattered about LiveLeak. I hate to give you the attention you so so badly crave. But this attention won't taste so sweet. You need to seek professional care for all that anger you have inside of you. Anger and fear. It dribbles down your ass crack and onto every post you smother with fear. Every complaint you have, every offensive remark you make, every time you put someone down you prove me correct with 1000% accuracy. So, turn off the computer, and answer More..that knock at the door and let reality in. You are a very, sad individual. You could take the predictable route and respond to this message with more of the same. But, you'll get no satisfaction because I will never read your reply. In the future, the very moment I see your gun-toting Sarah Connor picture, my eyes will skip a beat in the comments section. Enjoy your attention, someone's at the door.Less..

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

KenTheBarber

Posted Apr-26-2009 By

nonconforme

i like this obama guy, the usa needs to change its image to the world ..at leased this guy has the balls to try and get on with the rest of the world instead of bullying small countries to american way of thinking ..i also like this guy cos he is really pissing off the racist cunts of america who wont give him a chance

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

stan2285

who the fuk do you think you are calling me shit for brains ..this site is for liveleakers to give opinion on world affairs ..its not for ignorant tossers like you to shout your fukin big mouth off ..i dont even know where you are cos you have no flag ..FUKIN GROW UP

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

m1eft paul

oh i see i have a thumb down from someone who has a yellow streak down the back..aint got the balls to come out and let me know who you are ..i have a right to type my opinion ..its not even my country and yet the dick heads have a dig ...number 1 has no flag and number 2 has no balls , how can the world take these people seriously

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

m1eft paul

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

amsaw123

Yea thats right Barry 'Bama. Shake Chavez's hand and get on his good side because the Russians just stationed long range bombers in Venezuela and they could just cut off the oil if they wanted to. The united states is Venezuela's b*tch.

Posted Apr-26-2009 By

cab10886

To the OP. Thanks for this analysis. I feel well informed. I do hope the goal was not to change the minds of those here who will not let go of their old failed ideas. In that, you will always fail. ;) Great post, thanks.

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

stan2285

As an American, I don't think Obama's casual attitude towards Chavez does us much harm. But his attitude does do harm to the causes of anti-totalitarian movements in that part of the World. Obama has basically made it appear like we haven't got their back. We probably never did in the first place. But now it's more clear to them than ever. The week after Obama shook Chavez's hand, the leader of Chavez's most prominent opposition party fled Venezuela.

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

AvgDude2

South American countries know well that the U.S. does not 'have their backs', that U.S. interest in 'helping' them is a temporary thing. There are always anti-totalitarian movements everywhere, but the U.S many times have aided those totalitarian governments to violently crush anti-totalitarian movements. This is a diplomatic gesture that has not changed anybody's world (except for a few selected Americans). If you want to find a meaning to it, let it be 'I want to do things differently'. PerhapMore..s, Obama was raised to always shake hands when greeted by another individual...
Some people seem to forget that Obama has a somewhat different background (international) that most Americans (some of which never moved out of their birth towns).Less..

Intelligencer

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

WE ARE POWER

United States have to suck dicks of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela just so won't cut off the oil and so the Russian bombers stationed there won't bomb America. You should change your name to WE ARE POWER to YOU ARE SAUDI ARABIA'S OIL B8TCH.

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

stan2285

ITS OFFICIAL NOW!! the United States is Venezuelas b*tch because the Russians have long range bombers stationed in Venezuela and have to bow down to them just like they do to the Saudi Arabians just to get some oil and a credit line.

Posted Apr-25-2009 By

stan2285

We survived Carter quite well. Look what 8 years of republicans has done to America. Seems you have to go back pretty far in the past to try to find anyone worse than Bush and the republicans. And you failed at it anyway.